Subject: [BEHAVE] TURN-08 posted

From: Philip Matthews <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:07:55 -0400

Folks:

For various reasons, I have been unable to keep to my original  
schedule for updating TURN, which was to have a version ready for WGLC  
by the end of May. I apologize for not being able to do this.  
Unfortunately, I have not been able to work on the document in the  
past two months. I am hoping to have some time to work on it in the  
next two weeks, however I have decided to publish what I have now, in  
order to get comments before Dublin.

TURN-08, which has just been published, contains a major change. It  
introduces the concept of Preserving vs. Non-Preserving allocations  
(what I called "Fully-compliant" vs. "Partially-Compliant" allocations  
in Philly). Section 11 of the document has been totally rewritten as a  
result.

I would appreciate comments on this change.

- Philip

Here is a complete list of changes from -07 to -08

19.1.  Changed from -07 to -08

    o  Removed the BANDWIDTH attribute and all associated text  
(including
       error code 507 "Insufficient Bandwidth Capacity"), as the
       requirements for this feature were not clear and it was felt the
       feature could be easily added later.

    o  Changed the format of the REQUESTED-PROPS attribute from a one-
       byte field to a set of bit flags.  Changed the semantics of the
       unused portion of the value from RFFU to "MUST be 0" to give a
       more desirable behavior when new flags are defined.

    o  Introduced the concept of Preserving vs. Non-Preserving
       allocations.  As a result, completely revamped the rules for how
       to set the fields in the IP header, and added rules for relaying
       ICMP messages when the allocation is Preserving.

_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave

---

From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:12:00 -0700

Hi Philip,

Philip Matthews wrote:
> Folks:
> 
> For various reasons, I have been unable to keep to my original schedule
> for updating TURN, which was to have a version ready for WGLC by the end
> of May. I apologize for not being able to do this. Unfortunately, I have
> not been able to work on the document in the past two months. I am
> hoping to have some time to work on it in the next two weeks, however I
> have decided to publish what I have now, in order to get comments before
> Dublin.
> 

It seems that the codepoint and definition for the new ICMP attribute
are missing.

Thanks.

-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin           [                                 ]
Home: [email-masked] [RFC1855-compliant space for rent ]
Work: [email-masked]            [                                 ]
[                                                               ]
_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave

---

From: Philip Matthews <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:37:30 -0400

> It seems that the codepoint and definition for the new ICMP attribute

Hi Marc:

Good catch! (And thanks for the quick read).

I have added the attribute definition to my working copy. I also  
clarified that the attribute can appear only in Data indications and  
not Send indications (that is, it cannot be used by clients to send  
ICMP messages to the server).

I am checking with other authors of STUN-related documents before  
assigning a code point.

- Philip